********************************************************
NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from Microsoft Word.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.
*****************************************************************
Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
)
Indiana Paging Network, Inc. )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. ) File No. IC-98-53310
)
Indiana Bell Telephone Company, an )
SBC/Ameritech Operating Company, )
Verizon, )
BellSouth of Indiana, )
Sprint Corporation and )
Rochester Telephone Company, )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Adopted: January 14, 2002 Released: January 15,
2002
By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division,
Enforcement Bureau:
1. On December 17, 1998, Indiana Paging Network, Inc.
(``Indiana Paging'') filed informal complaints with the
Commission against Indiana Bell Telephone Company, an
SBC/Ameritech operating company (``SBC/Ameritech''), Verizon
(then GTE of Indiana), BellSouth of Indiana (``BellSouth''),
Sprint Corporation (``Sprint'') and Rochester Telephone Company
(``RTC'').
2. Under the FCC's complaint rules, Indiana Paging was
required to file a formal complaint within six months of each LEC
response to its informal complaint in order to have the formal
complaint relate back to the date the informal complaint was
filed.1 However, on October 18, 1999, Indiana Paging filed a
request for waiver of the six-month requirement, arguing that the
issues raised in its informal complaints were similar to those
raised in several pending formal complaint proceedings,2 and that
the public interest would be served by allowing Indiana Paging to
delay the filing of its formal complaints until after at least
one of those formal complaint proceedings was concluded. The
FCC's Enforcement Bureau granted Indiana Paging's request for
waiver on June 2, 2000, and established the time for filing
formal complaints in this proceeding to be 90 days after the
entry of a final non-appealable order in at least one of the
identified formal complaint proceedings.3
3. The Commission issued the TSR Wireless Order on June
21, 2000, which resolved liability issues in five of the pending
formal complaint proceedings.4 The United States Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's decision on
June 15, 2001.5 The Court of Appeals' decision became final and
non-appealable ninety days after it was issued (upon expiration
of the period in which to file a writ of certiorari),6 and adding
another ninety days as provided in the Extension Order made the
date for filing Indiana Paging's formal complaint December 12,
2001.
4. On December 7, 2001, Indiana Paging filed a first
Petition for Extension of Time requesting that we waive section
1.718 of the Commission's rules to allow Indiana Paging an
additional thirty day period from December 12, 2001, to convert
the informal complaints into formal complaints. Indiana Paging
stated that it had been actively engaged in settlement
discussions to resolve the matters at issue in its informal
complaint proceedings and that the thirty day extension would
facilitate settlement efforts. SBC/Ameritech, Verizon,
BellSouth, Sprint and RTC all consented to the Petition, and we
granted it on December 17, 2001.7 Our order specified that the
time for conversion of the informal complaints into formal
complaints was extended from December 12, 2001, to January 11,
2002.
5. On January 8, 2002, Indiana Paging filed the instant
Petition for Additional Extension of Time, requesting another
thirty day extension of time (from January 11 to February 11,
2002) for converting its informal complaints into formal
complaints. Indiana Paging states that it has settled its
dispute with two of the five defendants and has made substantial
progress in settlement discussions with the remaining carriers.
Further, all parties consent to the requested extension. We are
satisfied that granting Indiana Paging's petition will serve the
public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes
and by postponing the need for further litigation and expenditure
of further time and resources of the parties and of this
Commission until such time as may actually be necessary.
6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i),
4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.3 and 1.718 of
the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.3, 1.718, and the
authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, that the Petition
for Additional Extension of Time filed by Indiana Paging Network,
Inc. IS GRANTED.
7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise extended
by order, the deadlines that would otherwise apply under section
1.718 of our rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.718, are hereby waived, and the
dates on which Indiana Paging must convert the informal
complaints against Indiana Bell Telephone Company, an
SBC/Ameritech operating company, Verizon, BellSouth of Indiana,
Sprint Corporation, and Rochester Telephone Company into formal
complaints pursuant to section 1.718 of our rules, 47 C.F.R. §
1.718, are extended to February 11, 2002.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Radhika V. Karmarkar
Deputy Chief, Market Disputes
Resolution Division
Enforcement Bureau
_________________________
1 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.718.
2 See, e.g., Formal Complaints of Metrocall, Inc., File Nos.
E-98-14 through E-98-18 (filed January 20, 1998).
3 See Indiana Paging Network, Inc., Order, 15 FCC Rcd 9436
(Enf. Bur. 2000) (waiving Section 1.718(a) of the Commission's
rules, which requires that a formal complaint be filed within six
months of an associated informal complaint) (``Extension
Order'').
4 See TSR Wireless, LLC, et al. v U S West Communications,
Inc, et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 11166
(2000) (``TSR Wireless Order''), aff'd Qwest Corp., et al. v.
FCC, No 00-1377 (D.C. Cir. June 15, 2001).
5 Id.
6 In the interim, the petitioners filed a petition for
rehearing en banc that was denied.
7 See Indiana Paging Network, Inc., Order, DA 01-2910 (rel.
Dec. 17, 2001).